|
7.1. |
Preparation
: Communication, Appeals Process, Training Programs, And Pilot Testing |
|
|
As should be evident by now, the implementation of a performance management system requires the involvement of many players. Specifically, the successful implementation of the system requires a clear understanding of how the system works and a clear understanding of its benefits from the different perspectives of all involved. In other words, successful implementation requires wide organizational support and acceptance. Initially, it may be that each organizational layer and unit will include only one or just a handful of individuals who are knowledgeable and supportive of the system. These “champions” are likely to serve as advocates and resources for the system. Eventually, however, the system cannot be implemented successfully if only a handful of organizational members are on board. Before the system is launched, a successful communication plan must be implemented that will gain system acceptance. Part of the communication plan includes a description of the appeals process. Then, as part of the preparation phase before the system is actually launched, raters are trained to observe and evaluate performance as well as to give feedback. The system should then be tested, and the results of a pilot test should be used to fix any glitches. Only after these presystem implementation steps are taken can the system be launched with confidence. Finally, after the system has been tested and launched, there is a need to monitor and evaluate the system on an ongoing basis to determine whether it is working properly and what adjustments may be needed to make it work. The ongoing monitoring of the system is crucial because the system may eventually lose support if no data are provided to show the system’s benefits. Next,
let’s discuss what needs to be done before the system is actually
implemented, including formulating a communication plan, establishing an
appeals process, training raters, and pilot testing the system. |
|
7.2. |
Communication
Plan |
|
|
|
In general, having more and better knowledge of the performance management system leads to greater employee acceptance and satisfaction. Organizations often design a communication plan to ensure that information regarding the performance management system is widely disseminated in the organization. A good communication plan answers the following questions : |
|
|
|
- |
What
is performance management? Answering
this question involves providing general information about performance
management, how performance management systems are implemented in other
organizations, and the general goals of performance management systems |
|
|
- |
How
does performance management fit into our strategy? To
answer this question, we should provide information on the relationship
between performance management and strategic planning. Specifically,
information is provided on how the performance management system will help
accomplish strategic goals. |
|
|
- |
What’s
in it for me? A
good communication plan describes the benefits of implementing performance
management for all those involved. |
|
|
- |
How
does it work? Answering
this question entails giving a detailed description of the performance
management process and time line: for example, when meetings will take place,
what the purposes of each meeting are, and when decisions about rewards will
be made |
|
|
- |
What
are my responsibilities? The
communication plan should include information on the role and
responsibilities of each person involved at each stage of the process. For
example, it includes a description of the employees’ and supervisors’ main nresponsibilities
in the performance management process. |
|
|
- |
How
is performance management related to other initiatives? The
communication plan should include information on the relationship between
performance management and other initiatives and systems such as training,
promotion, and succession planning. |
|
Consider
the performance management system for the position of Senior Executive Service
(SES) in the U.S. Department of Justice.3 SES members serve in key leadership
positions directly below the top presidential appointees. SES members link
the appointees to the rest of the federal government, and they are charged
with overseeing various governmental activities in 75 federal agencies. This
is how their plan answered each of the questions discussed in the previous
list : |
|
|
- |
What
is performance management? For
example, the chapter notes that performance management aims at promoting
efficient and effective attainment of the department’s mission, program
objectives, and strategic planning initiatives, and it also aims at motivating
high levels of achievement and accountability. This chapter also includes
definitions of several key terms, including performance management system,
performance, progress review, rating levels, and annual
summary rating. |
|
- |
How
does performance management fit into our strategy? “The
Department of Justice federal leaders and managers create a climate for
excellence by communicating their vision, values and expectations clearly.”
It goes on to detail all of the ways in which leaders in the agency do this.
In addition, in a memorandum that was sent with the chapters, the director of
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) included this quote from President
George W. Bush: “We are not here to mark time, but to make progress, to
achieve results, and to leave a record of excellence.” The director then
describes how the system would be used to implement the key principles of the
president’s administration |
|
- |
What’s
in it for me? Throughout
the memo, there is clear information on how the performance management system
will help the SES members be more effective leaders so that the president’s
mission can be achieved. |
|
- |
How
does it work? The
steps in a performance management process, detailing the managers’
responsibilities at each step. For example, it outlines the performance
dimensions, the rating categories, and how to assign an overall rating. |
|
- |
What
are my responsibilities? The
communication plan outlines the responsibilities of the SES members as well
as their rating official, or the person in charge of rating their
performance. The plan emphasizes that leaders must create a culture
performing at a high level by continually communicating expectations and
rewarding highachieving performers. |
|
- |
How
is performance management related to other initiatives? The
communication plan touches briefly on the importance of linking system
outcomes to performance-based pay. The importance of training to maximize
performance is also considered. |
|
In
summary, the communication plan implemented by the Department of Justice is
extremely detailed and provides answers to most, if not all, of the key
questions that should be addressed by a good plan. However, even if a
communication plan answers all or most of the important questions, the fact
that the information has been made available does not necessarily mean the
communication plan will be successful in gaining acceptance. This is because
people have cognitive biases that affect what information is taken in and how
it is processed. Specifically, there are three types of biases that affect
the effectiveness of a communication plan, regardless of how well it has been
implemented. These are selective exposure, selective perception,
and selective retention. First,
selection exposure is a tendency to expose our minds only to ideas with which
we already agree. Those employees who already agree that performance
management is a good idea may become involved in the communication plan
activities, including reading about the system and attending meetings
describing how the system works. On the other hand, those who do not see much
value in performance management may choose not to read information about it
and not to attend meetings related to performance management. Second,
selective perception is a tendency to perceive a piece of information as
meaning what we would like it to mean even though the information, as
intended by the communicator, may mean the exact opposite. Someone who
believes performance management is about only rewards and punishments may
incorrectly interpret that receiving formal performance feedback at the end
of each quarter translates into receiving a pay increase or a bonus. Third,
selective retention is a tendency to remember only those pieces of
information with which we already agree. If an employee perceives his
employer as vindictive, that employee is not likely to remember information
about how the appeals process works or about other fair and equitable aspects
of the system. Selective
exposure, selective perception, and selective retention biases are pervasive and
could easily render the communication plan ineffective. Fortunately, there
are several ways to minimize the negative impact of these biases and,
therefore, help gain support for the system. Consider the following : |
|
|
- |
Involve
employees. Involve
employees in the design of the system. People support what they help create.
The higher the level of participation is in designing the system, the greater
the support for the system will be. |
|
- |
Understand
employee needs. Understand
the needs of the employees, and identify ways in which these needs can be met
through performance management. Basically, provide a personal, clear, and
convincing answer to the “What’s in it for me?” question |
|
- |
Strike
first. Create
a positive attitude toward the new performance system before any negative
attitudes and rumors are created. Make communications realistic, and do not
set up expectations you cannot deliver. Discuss some of the arguments that
might be used against the system, and provide evidence to counter them. |
|
- |
Provide
facts and consequences. Because
of the employee biases, facts do not necessarily speak for themselves.
Clearly explain facts about the system, and explain what they mean or what
the consequences are. Don’t let users draw their own conclusions because they
may differ from yours. |
|
- |
Put
it in writing. In
Western cultures, written communications are usually more powerful and
credible than spoken communications because they can be carefully examined
and challenged for accuracy. Create documentation, which can be made available
online, describing the system. |
|
- |
Use
multiple channels of communication. Use
multiple methods of communication, including meetings, e-mail, and paper
communication. In other words, allow employees to be exposed repeatedly to
the same message delivered using different communication channels. Of course,
make sure the channels all convey consistent information |
|
- |
Use
credible communicators. Use
credible sources to communicate the performance management system. In
companies where HR department members are perceived as “HR cops” because they
continually emphasize what cannot be done as opposed to how one’s job can be
done better, it may be better to use a different department or group.
Instead, in such situations, communication should be delivered by people who
are trusted and admired within the organization. It also helps if those delivering
the communication and endorsing the system are regarded as key and powerful
organizational players. |
|
- |
Say
it, and then say it again. Repeat
the information frequently. Since people can absorb only a small amount of
information at a time, the information must be repeated frequently. |
|
Table
7.1. |
Considerations
to Minimize the Effects of Communication Barriers |
|
Involve
employees |
|
Understand
employee needs |
|
Strike
first |
|
Provide
facts and consequences |
|
Put
it in writing |
|
Use
multiple channels of communication |
|
Use
credible communicators |
|
Say
it, and then say it again |
In
addition to implementing a communication process, support for the performance management
system can be gained by implementing an appeals process. This topic is
discussed next.
|
7.3. |
Appeal Process The inclusion of an appeals process is important in gaining employee acceptance for the performance management system because it allows employees to understand that if there is a disagreement regarding performance ratings or any resulting decisions, then such disagreements can be resolved in an amicable and nonretaliatory way. In addition, the inclusion of an appeals process increases perceptions of the system as fair. When an appeals process is in place, employees have the ability to question two types of issues: judgmental and administrative. Judgmental issues center on the validity of the performance evaluation. For example, an employee may believe that a manager’s performance ratings for that employee do not reflect his actual performance. Administrative issues involve whether the policies and procedures were followed. For example, an employee may argue that her supervisor did not meet with her as frequently as he had with her coworkers and that the feedback she is receiving about her performance is not as thorough as that received by her coworkers. Typically, when an appeal is first filed, the HR department serves as a mediator between the employee and the supervisor. An appeal sent to the HR department is usually called a Level 1 or Level A appeal. The HR department is in a good position to judge whether policies and procedures have been implemented correctly and has good information about the various jobs, levels of performance expected, and levels of performance of other employees within the unit and organization. The HR department gathers the necessary facts and brings them to the attention of either the rater to encourage reconsideration of the decision that caused the appeal or to the complainant to explain why there have been no biases or violations. In other words, the HR department either suggests corrective action to the supervisor or informs the employee that the decision or procedures were correct. |
|
|
If the supervisor does not believe corrective action should be taken, or if the employee does not accept the HR decision, and the appeal continues, then an outside and unbiased arbitrator makes a final and binding resolution. This is usually called a Level 2 or Level B appeal. This arbitrator can consist of a panel of peers and managers. The panel reviews the case, asks questions, interviews witnesses, researches precedents, and reviews policy. Then, they simply take a vote to make the decision. In some cases, the vote represents the final decision. In other cases, the vote is forwarded to a high level manager (vice president or higher level) who takes the panel’s vote into consideration in making the final decision. The box “Selected Excerpts from the University of North Carolina Performance Management Appeals Process” shows some of the key sections of the performance management appeals process for employees at the University of North Carolina. The appeals process is intended to air concerns and to resolve disagreements. The purpose of this specific policy is to provide employees and management with a means for resolving disagreements involving performance evaluations and performance pay issues. The information shown in the box describing the appeals process at the University of North Carolina spells out the steps involved, the time line that should be followed, and the various outcomes that could be expected. Given that such a policy is in place, employees are given assurances that, if there is an appeal, the case will be treated fairly and as objectively as possible. Once again, this should help gain support for the performance management system. |
|
BOX 7.1.
|
|
|
Selected Excerpts from the University of North Carolina
Performance Management Appeals Process
General Provisions Under
State policy neither party in the Appeals Process may be represented by an
attorney. State law and policy provide that the Chancellor’s decision on an
appeal is final and cannot be appealed further.
The
Appeals Process has jurisdiction over the following issues only :
|
|
|
- |
The
overall evaluation received as part of the Annual Review |
|
- |
The
rating on one or more principal functions |
|
- |
The
explanatory remarks included in the evaluation
|
|
Depending
on the actions taken by the General Assembly regarding salary increases
related to the performance evaluation process, the following issues also may
be appealed :
|
|
|
- |
Failure
to receive a performance increase and/or performance bonus when eligible |
|
- |
The
amount of the increase or bonus received
|
|
An employee is limited to one appeal for any work cycle, regardless of the number of issues involved. The employee should describe the complete remedy desired should the appeal be decided in his/her favor. For example, an employee who appeals the overall evaluation should specify the overall evaluation requested. If such an overall evaluation would result in eligibility for a performance increase, an increase percentage should be stated as part of the remedy requested in the appeal. By request (and with management approval) an employee may be granted a maximum of 12 hours off from regular duties for processing an appeal under this Appeals Process without any loss of pay and without charge to leave.
Performance Management Review Board The Chancellor appoints the Chair of the Performance Management Review Board (Board Chair) and the other members of the Review Board. When a Level B appeal is received, the Board Chair selects a three-member Panel and appoints a Panel Leader. The Board Chair notifies the employee of the name, job title, and department of each proposed Panel member. The employee has the right to disqualify up to two proposed members by notifying the Board Chair before the date stated in the letter of notification. Each panel will have one member with supervisory responsibility and two members with no supervisory responsibility. No member of the Panel will be from the employee’s own department. Any member may be designated as Panel Leader. The Panel determines what information is needed. The involved parties must provide the information requested by the Panel. The
Panel Leader notifies the employee and the department head in writing of the
hearing date and location. Every effort must be made to arrange for a timely
hearing. The Level B hearing is confidential. It is not open to the media or
other persons whose attendance is not approved in advance by the Panel
Leader. The employee, the department head, and supervisors involved in the performance
review are allowed to appear in person at the hearing. However, any party may
elect not to appear and to have the Panel’s Level B recommendation based only
on documentation presented to the Panel. The chair must receive advance
notification if anyone other than the employee and department head is to
provide information to the Review Board. The employee and management must
request approval in advance for witnesses to address the Panel. Only
witnesses approved in advance may appear at the hearing.
After
the hearing, the Panel decides whether additional information is needed. Any
information requested and received after the hearing is shared with the
employee and the department head. After considering all of the information
presented, the Panel makes its recommendation by majority vote and submits
its written recommendation through the Board Chair to the Chancellor. The Chancellor
either accepts, modifies, or rejects the Panel’s recommendation and issues
the University decision within 15 calendar days of receiving the Panel
recommendation. If the Chancellor rejects the Panel recommendation, the
written decision will state the reason for rejection. The Chancellor sends
the written decision to the employee. Source: Performance management appeals process. Available online at http://hr.unc.edu/Data/SPA/perfmgt/perf-appeal. Retrieval date: March 12, 2007. |
|
|
7.4. |
Training Programs For The Acquistion Of Required Skills Training
the raters is another step necessary in preparing for the launching of the performance
management system. Training not only provides participants in the performance
management system with needed skills and tools to do a good job implementing it
but also helps increase satisfaction with the system |
Specifically, the content areas that can be included in rater training programs are listed in Table 7.2
|
Table
7.2. |
Content
Areas That Can Be Included in Rater Training Programs |
|
1. |
Reasons
for implementing the performance management system |
|
2. |
Information
on the appraisal form and system mechanics |
|
3. |
How
to identify and rank job activities |
|
4. |
How
to observe, record, and measure performance |
|
5. |
How
to minimize rating errors |
|
6. |
How
to conduct an appraisal interview |
|
7. |
How
to train, counsel, and coach |
|
7.4.1. |
Rater Error Training Many performance management systems are plagued with rater errors. For example, about 1,700 years ago, the Wei dynasty in China implemented a performance management system for its household members. The philosopher Sin Yu has been quoted as saying that “an Imperial Rater of Nine Grades seldom rates men according to their merits, but always according to his likes and dislikes.”10 Accordingly, the goal of rater error training (RET) is to make raters aware of what rating errors they are likely to make and to help them develop strategies to minimize those errors. The goal of RET is to increase rating accuracy by making raters aware of the unintentional errors they are likely to make. Rater Error Training programs typically include definitions of the most typical errors and a description of possible causes for those errors. Such programs also allow trainees to view examples of common errors and to review suggestions on how to avoid making errors. This can be done by showing videotaped vignettes designed to elicit rating errors and asking trainees to fill out appraisal forms regarding the situations that they observed on the video tapes. Finally, a comparison is made between the ratings provided by the trainees and the correct ratings. The trainer then explains why the errors took place, which specific errors were made, and ways to overcome the errors in the future. Rater Error Training does not guarantee increased accuracy. Raters do become aware of the possible errors they can make but, because many of the errors are unintentional, simple awareness of the errors does not mean that errors will not be made. Nevertheless, it may be useful to expose raters to the range of possible errors. These errors include the following : |
|
|
|
- |
Similar
to me error. Similarity
leads to attraction so that we tend to favor those who are similar to us.
Consequently, in some cases, supervisors are more likely to give higher
performance ratings to those employees who are perceived to be more similar
to them in terms of attitudes, preferences, personality, and demographic variables
including race and gender. |
|
|
- |
Contrast
error. Contrast
error occurs when, even if an absolute measurement system is in place,
supervisors compare individuals with one another instead of against
predetermined standards. For example, when a supervisor rates an individual
of only average performance, the rating may actually be higher than deserved
if the other individuals rated by the same supervisor display substandard performance
levels: the average performer may seem to be better in comparison to the
others. This error is most likely to occur when supervisors complete multiple
appraisal forms at the same time because, in such situations, it is difficult
to ignore the ratings given to other employees.’ |
|
|
- |
Leniency
error. Leniency
error occurs when raters assign high (lenient) ratings to most or all
employees. In other words, leniency involves artificial rating inflation. |
|
|
- |
Severity
error. Severity
error occurs when raters assign low (severe) ratings to most or all
employees. That is, severity involves artificial rating deflation. |
|
|
- |
Central
tendency error. Central
tendency error occurs when raters use only the middle points on the rating
scales and avoid using the extremes. The result is that most or all employees
are rated as “average.” This is also an intentional type of error and is
mainly caused by a supervisor’s desire to play it safe. One negative consequence
of this error is that it is hard to make performance based distinctions namong
employees rated by the same rater |
|
|
- |
Halo
error. Halo
error occurs when raters fail to distinguish among the different aspects of
performance being rated. If an employee receives a high score on one dimension,
she also receives a high score on all other dimensions, even though performance
may not be even across all dimensions. For example, if an employee has a
perfect attendance record, then the rater may give her a high mark on
dedication and productivity. The perfect attendance record, however, may be
caused by the fact that the employee has large loan payments to make and
cannot afford to miss work, not because the employee is actually an excellent
overall performer. In other words, being present at work is not the same as
being a productive employee. This error is typically caused by the
supervisor’s assigning performance ratings based on an overall impression
about the employee instead of evaluating each performance dimension
independently. |
|
|
- |
Primacy
error. Primacy
error occurs when performance evaluation is influenced mainly by information
collected during the initial phases of the review period. For example, in
rating communication skills, the supervisor gives more weight to incidents
involving communication that took place toward the beginning of the review
period as opposed to incidents taking place at all other times |
|
|
- |
Recency
error. Recency
error occurs when performance evaluation is influenced mainly by information
gathered during the last portion of the review period. This is the opposite
of the primacy error: raters are more heavily influenced by behaviors taking
place toward the end of the review period instead of giving equal importance and
paying attention to incidents occurring throughout the entire review period. |
|
|
- |
Negativity
error. Negativity
error occurs when raters place more weight on negative information than on
positive and neutral information. For example, a rater may have observed one
negative interaction between the employee and a customer and several positive
interactions in which customers’ expectations were surpassed. The rater may
focus on the one negative incident in rating the “customer service”
dimension. The negativity error explains why most people have a tendency to
remember negative rather than positive news that they read in the newspaper
or watch on television. |
|
|
- |
First
impression error. First
impression error occurs when raters make an initial favorable or unfavorable
judgment about an employee and then ignore subsequent information that does
not support the initial impression. This type of error can be confounded with
the “similar-to-me error” because first impressions are likely to be based on
the degree of similarity: the more similar the person is to the supervisor, the
more positive the first impression will be. |
|
|
- |
Spillover
error. Spillover error occurs when scores from previous review periods unjustly influence current ratings. For example, a supervisor makes the assumption that an employee who was an excellent performer in the previous period ought to be an excellent performer also during the current period and provides performance ratings consistent with this belief. |
|
|
- |
Stereotype
error. Stereotype
error occurs when a supervisor has an oversimplified view of individuals
based on group membership. That is, a supervisor may have a belief that
certain groups of employees (e.g., women) are unassertive in their
communication style. In rating women, therefore, he may automatically
describe communication as being “unassertive” without actually having any
behavioral evidence to support the rating. This type of error can also lead
to biased evaluations of performance when an individual (e.g., woman)
violates stereotypical norms by working in an occupation that does not fit
the stereotype (e.g., assembly of airplane parts). This type of error can
also result in consistently lower performance ratings for members of certain
groups. For example, a study including an identical sample of black and white
workers found that white supervisors gave higher ratings to white workers
relative to black workers than did black supervisors. In other words, if a
white worker is rated, then it does not really matter whether the supervisor
is black or white; however, if a black worker is rated, the supervisor’s
ethnicity matters because this worker is likely to receive a higher rating
from a black supervisor than from a white supervisor |
|
|
- |
Attribution
error. The
attribution error takes place when a supervisor attributes poor performance
to an employee’s dispositional tendencies (e.g., personality, abilities) instead
of features of the situation (e.g., malfunctioning equipment). In other
words, different supervisors may place different relative importance on the
environment in which the employee works in making performance evaluations. If
supervisors make incorrect inferences about the employees’ dispositions and
ignore situational characteristics, actions taken to improve performance may
fail because the same situational constraints may still be present (e.g.,
obsolete equipment). |
